The idea that a person does not need to follow the law stems from the “no harm, no foul” philosophy. This fallacy tends to apply to law and gun control. While 99.7% of gun owners are law abiding citizens, anti-gun people insist that we follow unconstitutional gun control laws, which is not a logical position. A good example is the argument that our country is not a democracy, but rather a dictatorship.
The Lawbreaker Paradox is a common misconception among political activists and legal scholars. It says that criminals don’t follow laws and that an armed populace will discourage them from doing so. However, it also implies that only law-abiding citizens follow the law. The idea that laws hurt people reinforces the fallacy of lawbreaker paradox. This theory suggests that gun laws are not effective in deterring criminals.
In a democracy, observing the law strengthens and protects it, while disobeying the law can weaken it. A complacent attitude towards bad laws can undermine the faith of minority groups in democratic processes. However, a law-abiding minority can jolt a democracy into motion when it is violated. Ultimately, there is no one definition of “law-abiding” – and no one has a perfect definition of it.